24 Chapter 2
still danced in church on special occasions.^6 Oresme presents a convincing account of this
view, including the argument (often attributed to Copernicus and Galileo) that “ we do not
perceive motion unless we notice that one body is in the process of assuming a different
position relative to another. ”^7 Given the prestige of Aristotle, the extent and sympathetic
quality of Oresme ’ s account of the heterodox “ Pythagorean ” alternative has been much
remarked by scholars, some tempted to judge him a heliocentrist. He goes so far as to
argue that it would be paradoxical, even preposterous, for the heavens to rotate diurnally,
requiring them to travel at high speed to complete their daily revolution.
Oresme also confronted such scriptural passages as the famous miracle of the sun stand-
ing still for Joshua. Like many other scriptural interpreters, going back to Augustine,
Oresme notes that the Bible “ conforms to the customary usage of popular speech ... where
it is written that God repented, and He became angry and became pacified, and other such
expression which are not to be taken literally. ... Thus, we could say that the heavens,
rather than the earth, appear to move with diurnal motion while the truth is the exact
opposite.”^8
In the end, Oresme seems to draw back from advocating this extreme view, however
strongly he had presented the arguments in its favor:However, everyone maintains, and I think myself, that the heavens do move and not the earth: For
God hath established the world which shall not be moved [Psalm 92:1], in spite of contrary reasons
because they are clearly not conclusive persuasions. However, after considering all that has been
said, one could then believe that the earth moves and not the heavens, for the opposite is not clearly
evident. Nevertheless, at first sight, this seems as much against natural reason as, or more against
natural reason than, all or many of the articles of our faith. What I have said by way of diversion or
intellectual exercise can in this manner serve as a valuable means of refuting and checking those
who would like to impugn our faith by argument.^9Oresme ’ s statement might be read as a carefully balanced accommodation to common
opinion, despite the powerful arguments against the geocentric view he had just presented.
Perhaps he found those arguments privately persuasive but so disturbingly contrary to
church teachings (and to common opinion) that he prudently overrode them. As an expe-
rienced ecclesiastic, Oresme may well have discerned the enormous doctrinal controversy
that would ensue, were he to advocate heliocentric cosmology. When, a century and a half
later, Copernicus espoused that view, the text of his De revolutionibus reveals his appre-
hension of ecclesiastical condemnation; the rhetoric of his dedicatory letter to Pope Paul
III clearly aims to avert those dangers. One imagines that Copernicus was privately relieved
that he could present his controversial theory from his deathbed, where he was supposed
to have seen the first copy of his book, escaping any furor by disappearing into the
hereafter.
If indeed Oresme privately rejected the geocentric view, he had no such escape route
available; his rather tortuous formulation of his public position could be read as walking
a tightrope between dishonesty to his intellect and imprudent disclosure. His quotation of